Minutes from November 17, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
November 17, 1986
Attendance:
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergarrd, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc.
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Two typographical errors were identified and Mark Shaw
pointed out that he was in attendance at the last meeting,
but was left off of the attendance list for the minutes.
Item 2 - Alternate Route Technical Memo
John Neil led the discussion of this item. There was some
confusion about how the alternatives were defined. The text
did not agree with the figure. It was determined that the
most logical alternative was a combination of Alternate A
and Alternate B. If an alternate route through Blacksmith
Fork Canyon were to be considered, a route from Hyrum to
Laketown through Hardware Ranch and Cottonwood Canyon would
appear to have the most promise.
It was agreed that the study of alternate routes should be
postponed until the fu~l transportation potential of Logan
Canyon (consistent with environmental constraints) was de­veloped.
John Neil made the motion to accept the memo, with
the alterations made in the meeting, and its recommendations.
Gale Larson seconded the motion and the voting was unanimous.
John will modify the memo to reflect the teams comments.
Item 3 - Public Involvement Summary Memorandum
Cliff Forsgren led the discussion of the memo which had been
prepared to summarize the public involvement program to date.
Ducan Silver suggested that the verbal comments received
during public meetings be summarized also. Stan Nuffer asked
what sort of documentation the Forest Service would need
in order to be satisfied that there had been adequate public
participation. Fred LaBar said that the results of the
scoping meetings would be required before the Forest Service
1
could do much to evaluate the progress of a public partici­pation
program.
Clark Ostergarrd suggested that there be some provision in
the memo to identify those comments directed towards pre­serving
threatened and endangered species and maintaining
the River. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were not a
lot of differences in some of the column headings, for example
the two columns dealing with traffic flow ("Flow is Problem"
and "Improve Flow") and the two columns dealing with safety.
He also suggested showing the total number of responses in
each column.
Item 4 - Public Involvement/Scoping Meetings
Duncan Silver asked for a status report on the technical
memorandums which have been prepared to date. The status
report should indicate if they have been finaled and
approved. This report will be prepared for the next
meeting.
John Neil asked if a notice of intent was required for a
scoping meeting. If a notice of intent is required, it
should be prepared as soon as possible if a meeting is to be
held in early January. Stan will report to the team at the
next meeting on what the legal requirements are for notifi­cation
of a scoping meeting.
Jim Naegle suggested holding the information sheet on "Issues
and Concerns" until after the scoping meetings. Steve Flint
pointed out some items that needed attention on the fact
sheet that had already been mailed. Table 1 needed some
clarification on how averages were determined during periods
when the counter was not in service and Table 2 had a mis­labled
footnote. Steve was also concerned that some people
would not understand that a level of service D or E was not
for low or even average flow conditions, but represented
some percentage of time when flows were above the projected
average. More explanation of this concept will be included
in the next fact sheet.
Item 5 - Review of Existing Roadside Parking
Stan Nuffer presented an inventory of existing roadside
parking areas. The parking areas were identified by milepost
and included both planned parking and "\vide spots" which
appeared to have been used for parking. This list of parking
areas was compiled in the summer and mayor may not represent
winter parking patterns. Fred LaBar said that the Forest
Service has an inventory of winter parking areas which he
will provide to the team members.
2
Clark Ostergarrd said that it would be important to know
whether the parking areas were near the recreational feature
and which side of the road, relative to the River, they were
on. There are also areas that the Forest Service considers
problem areas and would just as soon not have parking nearby.
When alternates are developed, the information on location
of existing parking and need for planned parking will be
used to define the alternates.
ITEM 5 - Areas Meeting Criteria For Climbing Lanes
Stan Nuffer presented the results of an analysis of the need
for climbing lanes in the Canyon. AASHTO standards were
used as the evaluation criteria. If AASHTO standards are
met, there would be a climbing lane the entire length of the
Canyon.
There was some discussion on the improvement in LOS that
might be expected with the placement of new climbing lanes.
Lynn Zollinger asked if there was anything in the standards
that addresseed the distance between the lanes. Jim Naegle
indicated that he thought that was dictated by the
conditions at the particular site.
Duncan Silver pointed out that climbing lanes are used to
improve the LOS and minimize speed reduction on upgrades.
If a climbing lane were constructed, the LOS would be raised
to C in that particular stretch of road. However, when the
end of the lane was reached, the LOS would go back to D or
E. It does not appear that the capacity problem can be
solved for the entire Canyon and that minimizing the speed
reduction where possible should be the priority. Stan will
prepare a speed profile for the Canyon.
It was concluded that the team members do not believe that
LOS C can be attained through the entire Canyon. If it were
possible to construct a climbing lane everywhere the climbing
lane criteria were met, LOS C would be possible, however
there are places where a third lane is unacceptable.
ITEM 7 - Introduction of Layout of Roadway Widening and
Alignment Improvement Component
Stan Nuffer discussed the widening and straightening compo­nent
that will eventually be used, along with other compo­nents,
to define alternatives. Lynn Zollinger asked if the
requirements for vertical sight distance had been checked.
Stan indicated that it was underway.
SLC-STN/03
3

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
November 17, 1986
Attendance:
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergarrd, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc.
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Two typographical errors were identified and Mark Shaw
pointed out that he was in attendance at the last meeting,
but was left off of the attendance list for the minutes.
Item 2 - Alternate Route Technical Memo
John Neil led the discussion of this item. There was some
confusion about how the alternatives were defined. The text
did not agree with the figure. It was determined that the
most logical alternative was a combination of Alternate A
and Alternate B. If an alternate route through Blacksmith
Fork Canyon were to be considered, a route from Hyrum to
Laketown through Hardware Ranch and Cottonwood Canyon would
appear to have the most promise.
It was agreed that the study of alternate routes should be
postponed until the fu~l transportation potential of Logan
Canyon (consistent with environmental constraints) was de­veloped.
John Neil made the motion to accept the memo, with
the alterations made in the meeting, and its recommendations.
Gale Larson seconded the motion and the voting was unanimous.
John will modify the memo to reflect the teams comments.
Item 3 - Public Involvement Summary Memorandum
Cliff Forsgren led the discussion of the memo which had been
prepared to summarize the public involvement program to date.
Ducan Silver suggested that the verbal comments received
during public meetings be summarized also. Stan Nuffer asked
what sort of documentation the Forest Service would need
in order to be satisfied that there had been adequate public
participation. Fred LaBar said that the results of the
scoping meetings would be required before the Forest Service
1
could do much to evaluate the progress of a public partici­pation
program.
Clark Ostergarrd suggested that there be some provision in
the memo to identify those comments directed towards pre­serving
threatened and endangered species and maintaining
the River. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were not a
lot of differences in some of the column headings, for example
the two columns dealing with traffic flow ("Flow is Problem"
and "Improve Flow") and the two columns dealing with safety.
He also suggested showing the total number of responses in
each column.
Item 4 - Public Involvement/Scoping Meetings
Duncan Silver asked for a status report on the technical
memorandums which have been prepared to date. The status
report should indicate if they have been finaled and
approved. This report will be prepared for the next
meeting.
John Neil asked if a notice of intent was required for a
scoping meeting. If a notice of intent is required, it
should be prepared as soon as possible if a meeting is to be
held in early January. Stan will report to the team at the
next meeting on what the legal requirements are for notifi­cation
of a scoping meeting.
Jim Naegle suggested holding the information sheet on "Issues
and Concerns" until after the scoping meetings. Steve Flint
pointed out some items that needed attention on the fact
sheet that had already been mailed. Table 1 needed some
clarification on how averages were determined during periods
when the counter was not in service and Table 2 had a mis­labled
footnote. Steve was also concerned that some people
would not understand that a level of service D or E was not
for low or even average flow conditions, but represented
some percentage of time when flows were above the projected
average. More explanation of this concept will be included
in the next fact sheet.
Item 5 - Review of Existing Roadside Parking
Stan Nuffer presented an inventory of existing roadside
parking areas. The parking areas were identified by milepost
and included both planned parking and "\vide spots" which
appeared to have been used for parking. This list of parking
areas was compiled in the summer and mayor may not represent
winter parking patterns. Fred LaBar said that the Forest
Service has an inventory of winter parking areas which he
will provide to the team members.
2
Clark Ostergarrd said that it would be important to know
whether the parking areas were near the recreational feature
and which side of the road, relative to the River, they were
on. There are also areas that the Forest Service considers
problem areas and would just as soon not have parking nearby.
When alternates are developed, the information on location
of existing parking and need for planned parking will be
used to define the alternates.
ITEM 5 - Areas Meeting Criteria For Climbing Lanes
Stan Nuffer presented the results of an analysis of the need
for climbing lanes in the Canyon. AASHTO standards were
used as the evaluation criteria. If AASHTO standards are
met, there would be a climbing lane the entire length of the
Canyon.
There was some discussion on the improvement in LOS that
might be expected with the placement of new climbing lanes.
Lynn Zollinger asked if there was anything in the standards
that addresseed the distance between the lanes. Jim Naegle
indicated that he thought that was dictated by the
conditions at the particular site.
Duncan Silver pointed out that climbing lanes are used to
improve the LOS and minimize speed reduction on upgrades.
If a climbing lane were constructed, the LOS would be raised
to C in that particular stretch of road. However, when the
end of the lane was reached, the LOS would go back to D or
E. It does not appear that the capacity problem can be
solved for the entire Canyon and that minimizing the speed
reduction where possible should be the priority. Stan will
prepare a speed profile for the Canyon.
It was concluded that the team members do not believe that
LOS C can be attained through the entire Canyon. If it were
possible to construct a climbing lane everywhere the climbing
lane criteria were met, LOS C would be possible, however
there are places where a third lane is unacceptable.
ITEM 7 - Introduction of Layout of Roadway Widening and
Alignment Improvement Component
Stan Nuffer discussed the widening and straightening compo­nent
that will eventually be used, along with other compo­nents,
to define alternatives. Lynn Zollinger asked if the
requirements for vertical sight distance had been checked.
Stan indicated that it was underway.
SLC-STN/03
3